Quote from acrary:
Three elements to this question. 1). What is the expected profit factor of the strategy? 2). How much pain in the form of drawdown are you willing to take? 3). How prepared do you need to be for outlier drawdowns?
In a strategy with a 60% win rate and 1:1 win/loss the profit factor is expected to be 1.50. Over the course of 200 trades you can expect a maximum drawdown at the 90% confidence level of:
.5% risked - 5.5% expected max DD
1% risked - 11% expected max DD
2% risked - 21% expected max DD
3% risked - 30% expected max DD
If you needed a higher level of confidence for risking say 3% at the 99% confidence level the expected max DD goes up to 46%. So there'd be a 1% chance of a 46% dd risking 3% per-trade with a good strategy.
My own observation about max DD pain is that you will exceed your personal number before you realize what your tolerance is. You may think a 20% dd is ok, but when you see it in your account you may feel much different about it.
I know some traders deal with the outlier dd by buying put or call protection to cover the outsized moves.
From my experience, the max DD pain is generally about half what a person says or thinks it is. Also if you are going to make a mistake in sizing, it is better to mistakenly trade too small than too big.
Also, you have to account for degradation of returns - strategy obsolescence, human error, lack of opportunities during an unfavourable market environment etc.
For this reason, I think it's best for all traders to aim for a 1% chance of a 10% drawdown each year*. In the real world, with various assumption errors and implementation errors, this will probably equate to about a 1% chance of a 20% drawdown. And most people can handle 10% relatively easily, and 20% in a shit hits the fan situation. So if you target 99% confidence of <10% drawdown, your worst case scenario would be a bit painful but definitely survivable.
It also has the welcome side-effect of ZERO trading stress and size-related dilemmas, and improves your ability to withstand hard market tests or grey swans - and in fact means you have both the financial and psychological reserves to add some risk during those periods. This actually boosts returns through selective opportunism. Also it reduces to nil the chance of a 'death spiral' of losses causing psychological 'tilt', which radically increases the risk of further and bigger losses; same with investor redemptions.
This both reduces risk even more than the halving of size would by itself, and improves returns per unit risk by adding staying power and opportunism/reserves. You may well actually end up with performance only about 25% lower (i.e. 15% a year instead of 20% a year) and with risk of about 1/3 of your original level (e.g. 7% instead of 20% drawdowns), for a *doubling* of the CAGR/DD ratio - a gigantic improvement for an entirely trivial adjustment that ANY trader or institution can make with about 60 seconds work.
* I realise almost no one follows this, even myself. Although this post has made me think about it more.